• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Leslie Kean Media

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Leslie Kean to take on Stephen Colbert!

Ted Roe said:
@Saucerwench (great handle by the way)
To suggest that the ETH is plausible has nothing to do with what the cottage industry of UFOlogy suggests or claims that means.... I know Leslie personally and am absolutely satisfied that she knows full well the difference between the nonsense promoted by Salla and the rest of the loonies and the ETH as it was suggested by Dr. McDonald, Donald Keyhoe, Hillenkoeter and even Michio Kaku....
Click to expand...

She did the right thing getting Michio Kaku to clear the way before she went on. Going at it alone with this subject is very risky (professional suicide) and if the exercise is succesful, it could potentially take funding away from other long term efforts such as S.E.T.I.

Daring to say: 'they've been here all along you idiots' requires many heavy cannons lol... Close range scanning effort should be cheaper and more effective than trying to catch a remote low tech signal such as the one time wow signal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow!_signal

Remove the UAP filters and 'voila' LOLOL

A book full of documented events and radar tracks weighs more than one WOW signal you would think. Cosmic watergate anyone ?
 
Leslie Kean on NPR and Dylan Ratigan 8-24

Ezechiel said:
Still can't believe no pictures were taken from cockpits or the control tower.... damn thing was hovering for a while. United Airlines employees were apparently told to hush up. Don't forget this was the Bush era and that this kind of breach in homeland security would have been perceived as failure.



At the minimum, there must be radar tracks of this you would think as well as recorded control tower conversations... security camera recordings maybe ?
View attachment 1770
Click to expand...

Could that be a real photograph?

---------- Post added at 06:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:13 PM ----------
Ted Roe said:
Indeed, the animations used by ATC are "filtered" to represent transponder codes and those a/c that fly without transponders - US Military does this all the time though they aren't supposed to. Often, when in formation, only one will turn on a transponder. Sometimes ATC radar operators detect UAP like in the Ameriwest 564 case of 1995. Even NORAD detected that UAP and said so in its conversations with the ATC at Albequrque ARTCC. At the same time we have many examples of visual observations that were not detected by rapcon or other facilities.
We went to the FAA, via FOIA, and requested the hardcopy encrypted radar data that is collected initially by the radar sites (there are several around OHare) and, using known algorithms, reconstructed the radar scans for the time and location. We did find some very small returns from the general time and place but nothing that would confirm the presence of the UAP....
We have also documented a number of NMACS from a head on vector and found that the TCAS alarms never seem to trip so the question is whether or not UAP are detectable by the radars being used by both a/c and aviation facilities. In the Project Sphere report we suggest that those radars need to be improved to be able to detect UAP.
I personally wonder whether they are not detectable because of the density of the target, the shape of the target, energetic emissions from the target or a combination of any of the three....
Click to expand...

Maybe you should go around to all these news blogs like on the O'hare website that are suddenly talking about the case again. I think when you direct people to your website to read NARCAP reports, you are doing a great service to the field.

---------- Post added at 06:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:19 PM ----------

Just got a message on Leslie Keans mailing list

Leslie Kean GREAT NEWS: UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record is now on Amazon's top 100 bestseller list. Last time I looked it was #79. Please keep spreading the word!
Click to expand...
 
Leslie Kean on NPR and Dylan Ratigan 8-24

Hi Ryan,
I think the photo that hoax is based on is about 15yrs old based on the a/c in the pic..... in fact I think that was lifted from the example I put in the report....
 
Leslie Kean to take on Stephen Colbert!

Frank Stalter said:
!
Click to expand...

Thanks so much for this.

Jon Hilkevitch has mentioned in the interview that he was called by WGN Radio station about this whole affair so I went on their site to find more interesting pieces.

And there they have even opened section of Hot Topics for "O'Hare UFO". There is a new article by Hilkevitch himself with more comments about new interest in the case.

Besides that article you can also find those:

Reprint of Chicago Tribune Jan. 1, 2007 graphic on who saw what O'Hare.
http://www.wgnradio.com/news/ct-ufo-map.eps-20100824,0,7755947.graphic

Colbert Report interview re-sparks interest in 2006 O'Hare UFO sighting
http://www.wgnradio.com/news/top/chi-chicago-ohare-ufo-htmlstory,0,3911992.htmlstory

Behind covering the Chicago-O'Hare UFO
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/tribnation/2010/08/behind-covering-the-chicagoohare-ufo.html

And here is Hilkevitch's article in question:

The Truth is out there, but not everywhere
'Colbert Report' interview launches renewed O'Hare UFO hype
Source: http://www.wgnradio.com/news/ct-talk-chicago-ohare-ufo-0825-20100824,0,1495664.story
Jon Hilkevitch, Tribune reporter
8:51 p.m. CDT, August 24, 2010

The purported UFO that pilots and other eagle-eyed professionals reported seeing almost four years ago, hovering above Gate C-17 at O'Hare International Airport, never went away.

Don't get me wrong. The aviators, United Airlines ramp workers, managers and aircraft mechanics all said they witnessed the dark gray, metallic, disk-shaped UFO leave the restricted airspace over O'Hare with such tremendous force and velocity on Nov. 7, 2006, that it pierced a hole of crisp blue air in the cloud-covered sky.

Hardly a day goes by that I don't receive e-mails or phone calls from UFO enthusiasts and researchers asking for an update to my exclusive Tribune story from New Year's Day 2007.

The article was breaking news of a possible (or impossible) visit by extraterrestrials. It also disclosed efforts by the Federal Aviation Administration and United officials to claim that they knew nothing about the UFO reports, despite the witness accounts.

So I wasn't surprised Tuesday when my old story was Googled widely after an appearance Monday night on Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report'' by author Leslie Kean. Kean interviewed me several times for her new book, "UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go on the Record,'' which is about reported UFO sightings by highly respected, reputable witnesses.

To find details of the incident online, Kean told Colbert, one need simply Google "Chicago O'Hare UFO," which enough people did to send those words vaulting up Google's list of most-searched terms early Tuesday.

Thrust back onto the UFO beat — my gig at the Tribune is transportation — my day became more bizarre when the online Weekly World News linked to a video of me discussing the incident. The video is an off-air chat I had back in 2007 with anchorman Jim Wagner of Tribune-owned CLTV while Wagner and I prepared to tape an interview on the O'Hare event.

Conspiracy theorists certain that the government routinely covers up evidence supporting real UFO sightings viewed the off-air banter as proof enough. Never mind that I hadn't provided any confirmed information that I hadn't already reported.

Yet to this day on YouTube, that video is still presented under the headline, "O'Hare UFO leaked news footage seconds before broadcast."

Monday night with Colbert, Kean mentioned the original Tribune story, which with 1.6 million page views to date remains the single most popular story or column in the history of chicagotribune.com. In fact, by Tuesday evening, it had climbed atop the current list of most-viewed stories on the Web site.

After that story originally appeared, the FAA explained away the UFO spotting as a "weather phenomenon.''

"This thing was hovering over Chicago O'Hare airport at rush hour,'' Kean said. "Lots of people saw it, (but) the U.S. government never said a word.''

[email protected]
Copyright © 2010, Chicago Tribune
 
Leslie Kean to take on Stephen Colbert!

Dear colleagues.

Leslie Kean was interviewed today at WPR (Wisconsin Public Radio). I have recorded audio, edited it without commercial and archived. Listeners were also able to call and ask the questions during the show..

Besides her book "UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record" some of the subjects that are also covered during the show were:

- Leslie's comments her appearance on The Colbert Report
- The COMETA Report
- Belgian UFO Wave 1989-1990
- O'Hare incident, FAA tapes & Air Safety issues (as I mentioned in my previous post on UFO Updates, tapes can be downloaded here: http://tinyurl.com/2umsp9z
- GEIPAN & CEFAA
- Cash-Landrum Incident
- Project Blue Book
- Ray Bowyer - Channel Islands Sighting
- Parviz Jafari - Iran UFO Incident - 1976
- National Press Club Conference on UFOs - November 12, 2007
etc...

<O:p</O:p
Show is uploaded so you can download it here:
Download link:
http://www.adrive.com/public/b3a444dae7ce461a541388347860393426f7a59325baff34d17a2895e0495aea.html
<O:p</O:p

Best Wishes
<O:p</O:p
----

Previous posts of archived interviews about Leslie's book archived at:
http://tinyurl.com/3xwxtsa
<O:p</O:p
 
Leslie Kean to take on Stephen Colbert!

Leslie Kean replied to James Oberg

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38977500/
　
Skeptic misses point behind UFO book
Solid sightings cited in ‘UFOs’; serious investigation needed
　
By Leslie Kean
　
When I wrote my book about officially documented UFO reports, I fully expected the skeptics to react. That’s why I was careful to focus only on the very best evidence from the most credible sources in "UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go on the Record." Since 95 percent of all sightings are eventually identified, the book is concerned only with the remaining 5 percent — those UFO events that have been thoroughly investigated, involve multiple witnesses and ample data, but still cannot be explained.
That didn’t stop James Oberg, a space analyst for NBC News, from complaining that the book was based on a “questionable foundation.”
In the biographical note appended to his commentary, he notes that he spent 22 years at NASA’s Mission Control and has written books about space policy and exploration. But he neglects to inform readers of something UFO researchers already know all too well: that he is a founding fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI, formerly CSICOP), a group whose aim is to debunk UFOs and any other unexplained phenomena that challenge our familiar ways of thinking.
For many years, Oberg, while retaining his stance as an objective student of the UFO phenomenon, has been a consistently vocal skeptic. 　His long list of articles dealing with UFOs date from the 1970s and are posted on his website under the heading "space folklore,"　 which accurately sums up his attitude towards the subject. He may be qualified to serve as an unbiased, expert consultant on Russian or Chinese missile systems, but not on UFOs.
His objection to my many varied cases has to do with his notion that pilots are poor observers. To buttress this idea, he quotes J. Allen Hynek referring to questionable statistics compiled in the 1960s by Project Blue Book. 　He also cites Russian researchers describing two events in 1982 when pilot sightings were accurately identified as "military balloons" after the fact.
This is not surprising, since the vast majority of sightings can be explained, and this kind of identification is made all the time. However, such solved sightings — whether made by pilots or anyone else — have absolutely nothing to do with the cases presented in my book.
I wonder if Oberg gave "UFOs" a careful read. He spent many paragraphs quoting me concerning a report on aviation cases by French researcher Dominique Weinstein. The problem is, those are not my quotes. The chapter from which he extracted them was written by Jean-Jacques Velasco, head of the French government‘s UFO agency for over 20 years, as is obvious in his byline and narrative about French research.
　
Oberg gleefully proclaims that I have “faithfully vouched for” the cases in Weinstein's list, but actually, I have respectfully allowed Velasco to write his own chapter. (About half the chapters in my book were written by highly credentialed authorities and expert witnesses.) If Oberg wants to discuss the Weinstein study, he'll have to contact Velasco.
Oberg’s fixation on the question of the reliability of pilots as witnesses is not raised by the generals and aviation experts I have interviewed — officials who have studied pilot cases and interviewed pilot witnesses for decades. 　As described in "UFOs," French Air Force Maj. Gen. Denis Letty initiated an extensive study of UFO data because competent pilots he knew personally were confronted by the phenomenon. Chilean Gen. Ricardo Bermudez was instrumental in the founding of his country‘s official UFO investigative agency in 1997 because of inexplicable sightings involving pilots.
Richard Haines, who has written more than 70 papers in leading scientific journals and published more than 25 U.S. government reports for NASA, was formerly chief of the space agency's Space Human Factors Office and served for 21 years as a retired senior aerospace scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center. Having studied pilot sightings and related aviation safety issues for more than 30 years, and having personally interviewed hundreds of pilots during that time, Haines has concluded that pilots are indeed excellent witnesses, given their thorough training, expertise and hours of flying time.
Haines is now chief scientist for the National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena. Sadly, most pilots never report their sightings, as he points out in "UFOs."
Most importantly, the aerial cases documented in "UFOs" — and many more on the record elsewhere — involve multiple factors such as:
• Sightings of long duration, allowing for accurate voice transmissions and the refinement of the initial identification.
• Multiple witnesses — co-pilot, crew, passengers, other aircraft in different locations, and occasionally observers from the ground.
• Onboard radar and ground radar recording the presence of a physical object, often corresponding exactly to the visual sighting.
• Direct physical effects on the aircraft, such as equipment malfunction.
As an example, Brig. Gen. Jose Periera of Brazil, commander of air force operations until 2005, reports on an "array of UFOs" observed over his country in 1986. Two pilots chased one of the objects for 30 minutes. Numerous other pilots saw the objects. Radar recorded them. Six jets were scrambled from two Brazilian air force bases to pursue them. Some of the pilots made visual contact corresponding to radar registrations. Both military and commercial pilots were involved. Onboard as well as ground radar systems confirmed the presence of the objects.
“We have the correlation of independent readings from different sources,” Periera writes. “These data have nothing to do with human eyes. When, along with the radar, a pilot‘s pair of eyes sees that same thing, and then another pilot‘s, and so on, the incident has real credibility and stands on a solid foundation.”
In 2007, airline captain Ray Bowyer saw two gigantic, bright yellow objects suspended over the English Channel, which he observed carefully for 15 minutes. His passengers saw them, another pilot on a second aircraft was also a witness, and an object was registered on radar.
In 1986, three Japan Airlines pilots watched a series of UFOs for 30 minutes, communicating with air traffic control while radar operators picked up the objects in corresponding locations.
I could go on with many more examples, presented in detail in the book.
Oberg says pilots may misinterpret visual phenomena when forced to make a split-second diagnosis before taking immediate action — very rare cases, I would assume — and no one would disagree with that. But, just as was the case with the solved Russian sightings I discussed earlier, this is entirely beside the point with respect to my book, because the cases presented do not involve such a scenario.
In addition, "UFOs: General, Pilots and Government Officials Go on the Record" presents many other cases that do not involve pilots at all — but often military personnel and police officers — including:
• The famous 1980 incident near RAF Bentwaters in Britain, involving the landing of a UFO and objects sending beams of light to the ground.
• The 1981 "Trans-en-Provence" landing case in France, investigated by the official French agency GEPAN.
• Belgian Maj. Gen. Wilfried De Brouwer‘s report on the wave of sightings in Belgium in 1989-90, which includes a spectacular photograph.
• The 1993 "Cosford Incident" involving a UFO over two Air Force bases in Britain, investigated by the Ministry of Defense.
• The 1997 Phoenix Lights incident that former Arizona Gov. Fife Symington described.
These are just a few of a host of cases with abundant data that don't rely on pilot observations — and which are still unsolved. It‘s the aggregate of cases, the accumulation of evidence and the long-running but unsuccessful attempts of qualified experts to resolve them that establishes the reality of a yet-unexplained physical phenomenon with extraordinary capabilities.
Oberg says that "if investigators are unable to find the explanation for a particular UFO case, that doesn't constitute proof that the case is unexplainable.” Fair enough. Perhaps there is some prosaic explanation still to be discovered. There‘s always that possibility, no matter how small.
But we remain in a state of ignorance concerning UFOs, leaving us with the conclusion presented in the book: We need a systematic, scientific investigation of the skies that actively looks for these mysterious and elusive objects. 　In the meantime, all I ask is that devout skeptics like Oberg read the entire book before raising objections that actually have no bearing on the matter at hand.
Investigative journalist Leslie Kean is the author of the New York Times bestseller "UFOs: General, Pilots and Government Officials Go on the Record" (Harmony/Crown).　 Her work has appeared in many publications including The Nation, International Herald Tribune and the Boston Globe.　 She is also the co-author of “Burma’s Revolution of the Spirit” and co-founder of the Coalition for Freedom of Information.
© 2010 MSNBC Interactive. Reprints
　
 
Leslie Kean to take on Stephen Colbert!

uforadio said:
New article about Kean-Oberg exchange:

http://tinyurl.com/265osrz

Best Wishes
Giuliano
Click to expand...


Thanks for that link. The article sums up my feelings about UFOs. If someone doesn't know what they saw, they can't say for a fact what it was. We can speculate that it's a previously unknown phenomena, military craft, alien visitor, time traveller, but we just don't know. I tend to think like Oberg, that these are probably mis-identified objects that would be clear if seen from a different perspective or in a different situation, but the operative word is probably. It isn't certain.
 
Leslie Kean to take on Stephen Colbert!

Angel of Ioren said:
Thanks for that link. The article sums up my feelings about UFOs. If someone doesn't know what they saw, they can't say for a fact what it was. We can speculate that it's a previously unknown phenomena, military craft, alien visitor, time traveller, but we just don't know. I tend to think like Oberg, that these are probably mis-identified objects that would be clear if seen from a different perspective or in a different situation, but the operative word is probably. It isn't certain.
Click to expand...

I don't have any dispute with your statement and there is also no contradiction from that point of view with Leslie's book. In fact if that could be the standpoint of most pseudo-skeptics (I am not using here the term skeptics or agnostics) I think that it would lead to revolution in this field.

However I do have some objections related to statements inside the last article in question.

Columnist of the article has wrote:
"I'll let you read the exchange for yourself, but with a parting shot: It is easy to call something a UFO when nobody is sure what the thing was. The other day I saw a balloon, or a garment bag, or perhaps it was a big sheet of Saran Wrap, floating through the sky. I'm not sure what it was, and so by definition it was a UFO."

That is simply not correct and it is not definition of a UFO.

Columnist has again wrote:
"As our Bad Science Columnist Ben Radford puts it: "All that is needed to create a UFO sighting is one person who may not recognize a light or object in the sky. But just because one person or even several people can't immediately identify or explain something they see doesn't mean that someone else with more training or experience (or even the same person seeing the same object from a different angle) may not instantly recognize it."

Comment above shows why this article fails in the final analysis. Yes, mentioned conditions could be enough to create a UFO report from the perspective of observer(s) but that is not enough to coin sighting as a UFO as such by the definition.

Columnist has again wrote:
"Who can say whether the witnesses actually saw what they think they saw, or if a trick of light or perspective was at work."

I don't know is the author actualy aware that UFO reports have been reviewed by official investigations during the history of the phenomena. And especially because of the official investigations (in some countries still ongoing - I do know here what I am talking about as I have interviewed general Ricardo Bermudez back in 2000. and Jacques Patenet in 2006.) we have the statistical correlation between explained reports, possibly explained, unexplained because of lack of data and unexplained reports (note the different categories there). Kean's book calls with arguments for proper investigation so in that case the remaining statistical residue of "extraordinary and reliable cases" (yes I am aware of the Sagan statement that "the reliable cases are uninteresting and the interesting cases are unreliable" - don't get me wrong - I do respect Sagan) could be put on proper test in real time (what ever the conclusion will be and without biased opinions that are formed even before the investigation). It is simple as that.

Best Wishes

Giuliano
 
Leslie Kean to take on Stephen Colbert!

Dear colleagues.

Michio Kaku has interviewed Leslie Kean today (September 11th) for his radio show "Scientific Fantastic" that is broadcasted over 130 radio affiliates.

Edited without commercials for your listening pleasure.

Download link:
http://tinyurl.com/34c5c73

　
Some of the subjects discussed in the show:

- Michio Kaku's views towards UFO phenomenon and scientific possibilites
- COMETA Report
- Skeptics and James Oberg's article
- Significance of radar-visual cases
- Iran UFO Incident 1976 (Parviz Jafari)
- Belgian UFO Wave 1989-1990
- JAL-1628 UFO Incident 1986
- Project Blue Book & dr. J. Allen Hynek

Best Wishes
　
Giuliano
　


---------- Post added at 12:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:51 AM ----------

Hastings comment about Kean-Oberg exchange is available here:

edited - As Rob's comments is now available here directly I am removing previous link from my post.
 
Leslie Kean to take on Stephen Colbert!

The UFO Debate: Oberg vs. Kean
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>​

What You Should Know about James Oberg’s Track Record<o:p></o:p>​


By Robert Hastings
www.ufohastings.com<o:p></o:p>​

<o:p></o:p>
UFO “skeptic” James Oberg is currently challenging the validity of the material found in journalist Leslie Kean’s excellent new book, “UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go on the Record.” Oberg is a founding member of a rather interesting organization, the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) now renamed the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI).

Actually, CSI is a skeptical organization in name only when it comes to the subject of UFOs. For the real story, including the very interesting and generally-unpublicized past government affiliations of some of it's key members, including James Oberg, go to my website www.ufohastings.com and read my article “Reporter Duped by UFO Debunkers.”

My own research on UFO activity at nuclear weapons sites—as confirmed by declassified <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:country-region w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region> government documents and ex-military eyewitness testimony—will be presented at the National Press Club in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Washington</st1:City> <st1:State w:st="on">D.C.</st1:State></st1:place> on September 27, 2010. At that press conference, seven ex-USAF personnel will divulge their knowledge of UFO incursions at ICBM sites and nuclear weapons depots during the Cold War era.

So what does this have to do with Oberg and his group CSI? Well, the organization's magazine, Skeptical Inquirer, has been edited since the early 1980s by Kendrick Frazier, whose profession is listed as “Science Writer” in the publisher's statement. Not mentioned (even in Frazier's own online bio) is the fact that he worked for 20-plus years as a Public Relations Specialist at Sandia Labs, a leading <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> government nuclear weapons laboratory. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Consequently, here is the situation: Hundreds of declassified documents clearly establish a link between UFOs and nukes, a fact confirmed by over 120 ex-military personnel interviewed by myself. And who is responsible for the content of the leading debunking magazine—whose pages routinely feature articles discrediting UFOs and those who report them? Why, a PR guy who worked for two decades for the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> government’s nuclear weapons program! <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Hmmmmm…

Also not mentioned in Skeptical Inquirer magazine, but discussed in my article (referenced above) is the fact that James Oberg, a leading UFO debunker at CSI, was a USAF Security Officer for nukes-related information who once privately chastised another former USAF officer, Dr. Bob Jacobs, for publishing what turned out to be Top Secret information about the nukes-related Big Sur UFO case. Fortunately, Dr. Jacobs later published the key portions of Oberg's letter. All of the documented details relating to this are available at my website.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
So, when someone claims that Oberg is a true UFO “skeptic” or that his baby, CSI/CSICOP, is an objective, scientifically-oriented group that has no ax to grind when it challenges those who release sensitive UFO-related information—including the highly-credible individuals presented in Leslie Kean's new book—please send them to my website to learn the facts.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
BTW, Kean’s book, “UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go on the Record” contains the testimony of retired USAF Col. Charles Halt, who states that a UFO reportedly directed beams of light down into the nuclear weapons depot at the RAF Bentwaters airbase in England in December 1980. The book is currently #30 on the New York Times Non-Fiction Bestseller List. Let’s hope that it reaches #1 given that it should be read by everyone, skeptic and proponent alike.
 
Leslie Kean to take on Stephen Colbert!

So ad hominem logical fallacies are cool when they're against skeptics? There's no need to do that - people will believe who and whatever they want, regardless of whether it's right or wrong. In this case, Oberg is providing his opinion and basing it on what science knows.
It really seems as though no one is objective when it comes to UFOs, so it would be better if people would try and listen to each other's points instead of getting into petty arguments about who did what. Until true physical or clear visual evidence is actually provided (apparently a recent guest has some that he's been holding on to for 30 years), all that we have is speculation. People will insist that they know what they saw, but no one can ever be sure of anything.
We have no testable theories, all we have are ideas. None of which may actually be the true solution.
 
Back
Top